Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Of course. Each country wants the very best deal it can get. For itself.

So no trade will ever be done then.

That's why you need skilled negotiators.

Nope, Britain is free to trade under the WTO rules.

And has the skilled negotiators too, they were the
ones that have always been involved in the WTO.

Up to the other country to do that too. Which
is why, as I keep on saying, you don't do it with
a handshake over a pint. It takes many years.

and after I think 7 years this has failed I've
heard it something germnay didn't like.

The US trying its usual trick of bullying a settlement, more like.

Its actually the reverse, the US doesn’t care currently until
it becomes clear who the new Prez is, because Hitlary has
never been keen on any agreement and its unlikely that
that fool Trump has even considered the question at all.

Which is why the EU has become to large and unfit for the
purpose it was originaly set up for which was to make sure
that no single country could gain the upper hand.

That might make some sense to you, I suppose.

Be interesting to see just how we get on without it
if and when we leave. As the reasons for joining all
those years ago are still as valid today as then.

Bull**** they are given how the EEC has morphed over
time and it has become clear that the eurozone can't work
and will require one hell of a bailout in a desperate attempt
to delay the inevitable failure of the common currency.

But at least we'll have 'taken back control'
as England sinks down the world pecking order.

Britain has been doing that for centurys now.

You get to like that or lump it.